1992 PLP 585 (PLC)

4. Now the short question for determination is whether the petitioner has been transferred for administrative reasons or for reasons connected with his legitimate trade union activities. The facts stated above show that by order dated 31-3-1991 five office-bearers and eight active members of the newly formed union were transferred to Karachi and the order was rescinded on 9-4-1991 possibly on account of the fact that the High Court had earlier suspended its operation. The transfers could not have been made during the pendency of proceedings for referendum before the Regional Registrar. The petitioner was posted in Lahore in February, 1988 and no official record has been produced to show that his transfer back to Karachi had been necessitated on account of the fact that he had been found surplus at Lahore. On the other hand, the assertion in clause `B' (Page 7 of the grounds of petitioner) that seven persons had been employed after 10-4-1991 to perform the duties like that of the petitioner has not been categorically and squarly denied. It has only been said that no person has been employed on regular basis which may mean that some ad -hoc appointments may have been made. The normal course is that when certain persons are found surplus some notice is done giving the facts and figures and the approval of the competent authority is obtained either for transfer or for retrenchment. It appears to me that the application of the new trade union at Regional Office, Lahore was not palatable to the authorities who in the first instance passed an order containing a chain of 23 transfers and then selected the petitioner and his other colleagues for transfer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed on record a Telex dated 25-1?1991 from the General Manager (A&P) Pakistan Steel to Mr. Bashir Ahmad Chohan, Deputy Secretary (marked A) in which it has been stated that 233 officers and 8522 workers are surplus in Karachi. As stated above, it has not been shown that the staff of the type of the petitioner at Lahore is surplus. The staff at Karachi has already swelled beyond the estimated limit. Therefore, it does not appear to me that the transfer of the petitioner has been ordered for administrative reasons. The new trade union was registered on 5th May, 1990 and it was after that, that the administration started passing transfer orders. The petitioner earned adverse remarks for the years, 1989 and 1990 which were recorded on 11-3-1991 and 12-3-1991, respectively wherein he had been adversely comended upon for his trade union activities although in 1989 the new trade union had not yet been registered and factually no remark could be made about his trade union activities in 1989. This would mean that any stick was considered good enough to bend him with. These remarks were duly communicated to the petitioner and to my mind were actuated on account of the trade union activities of the petitioner, which were not liked by the administration. It therefore appears to me that: the assertion of the petitioner that he has been transferred to Karachi on account of his trade union activities has factual basis. The law on this subject is contained in section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and is reproduced below:- ??????????? "15?.. (1) No employer or trade union of employers and no person acting on behalf of either shall-- (a)??????? ..... (b)??????? ..... (c)??????? ..... (d) dismiss, discharge, remove from employment or transfer or threaten to dismiss, discharge or remove from employment or transfer a workman or injure or threaten to injure him in respect of his employment by reason that the workman

(i) is or proposes to become, or seeks to persuade any other person to become, a member or officer of a trade union, (ii) participates in the promotion, formation or activities of a trade union." The staff at Karachi being already in excess and it having not been shown that the petitioner was surplus, the only conclusion that I can draw is that the transfer to Karachi has been ordered on account of the trade union activities of the petitioner.

5. I therefore set aside the order of transfer of the petitioner-to Karachi dated 18-8-1991 and the relieving order dated 19-8-1991. The petitioner had complained on 15-9-1991 that his salary was not being paid to him and that he had been marked absent from 21-8-1991 to 26-8-1991. I direct that the petitioner shall be paid his dues up to date if they have already not been paid and that he shall be treated on duty for the period he had been marked absent. With these observations the petition is allowed with costs which are estimated to be Rupees Five hundred (Rs.500). H.B.T./179/N.I.R.C.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.